This is the second most ridiculous exchange on the SDMB I’ve ever seen. It’s like you guys are arguing over whether paying with a ten-dollar bill for an $8 item counts as giving the store $10 (the bill), $8 (bill minus the change), or $0 (the bill-change-item).
It’s absurd.
More or less, yeah :). When I’m reading a puzzle, I try to interpret words pretty literally. But there are definitely other valid interpretations; if you’re talking about lost value, I’m with the $100 group.
Chessic, I’m deeply ashamed that I’ve disappointed you, and expect I’ll spend the twilight years of my life looking for ways to make amends.
Here’s my answer:
To me, the theft and the purchase are two completely separate actions. It’s clearer to see when the order of events is reversed. The man first buys $70 of merchandise with a $100 bill and gets $30 in change. This is a legitimate transaction; the store has the $100 bill, the man owns the $70 merchandise and the $30 change in his pocket. End of action; close the books on that part. A few minutes later, the man comes back and steals $100 from the till. Therefore, the store was simply robbed of $100. The fact that there was also a purchase is irrelevant from an accounting perspective.
I didn’t say you disappointed me. I said this was ridiculous. And I wasn’t even talking to you. You guys are arguing over whether merchandise counts as money and if so, how much. You’re also essentially fighting over whether “I thought I had more cash, but I don’t” counts as loss. It’s basically like antagonistic agreement. You guys are in a competition to see who can agree the hardest.
But if you want to make amends, my jeans have a rip in them. You can start there.
ETA: Out of curiosity, suppose you were at a gas station pumping gas, and you turn around to realize the nozzle wasn’t in the tank and you were actually just spraying gasoline on the concrete. You spilled 2 gallons of $2.50/gallon gas. Did you lose 2 gallons or did you lose $5?
I find myself agreeing with your point 100% ! Not only that, it possesses a certain brilliance, and evidences a level of lucidity rarely, but not never, seen on the Dope.
If someone comes in and takes your $100 bill and spends it in your store it’s a crime distinct from just theft. The order of events determined that. You don’t get to go on the stand and say that it was the same outcome as if you had not taken the $100 bill, or did it in a different order.
Why these two things are separate, and also independent of each other, I can’t see.
The question gives no indication it requires an evaluation of the inventory values though, and I’ve never heard of assigning cash losses to stores by the retail value of lost inventory, in a math problem.
I don’t see your point. Why would I argue that an item’s value is its inventory cost? I pointed out on several occasions that the cost to the store was the cost of acquiring or replacing the goods that were sold. I even pointed out examples where the transactions could end up costing more than the $100. The value of an item is not really related to its inventory cost. However, the cost to the store of an item is exactly equivalent to its inventory cost.
And yes, an item is never worth more than what someone is willing to pay for it. That is the basics of economics. Not my definition, it’s been around for quite a bit.
If you have an inborn temptation to fight wrongness, educating yourself on economics would be a great start.
To go back to your ferrari example. the reason that you can’t just name your price of $1 and drive off with it is because someone else is willing to pay more for it. They bid $2, you bid $3, and so on, until it goes out of the range of one of your budgets. They are not going to sell it to you for less than someone else is willing to pay for it.
But you know what, they will also sell it to you for less than the list price. If it says $250,000, you’d be a fool to pay that much. You’d go in and offer 225k, and might end up settling at 239k. The value of the car was not 250k, it was what you agreed to pay for it.
Same as your theft at my home example. If I buy a brand new TV for $1000, and someone steals it, I have lost $1000, because I now need to replace it. If I had put a $2000 price tag on it, that didn’t mean that I lost $2000.
To continue, if the thief had, instead of cash, just stolen $70 in merchandise, and the owner decided to claim it on his insurance, the insurance would pay out the replacement cost, not the sale price, of the item.
You are conflating cost and value, again. Cost is what the store paid to stock the item. Value is what the item will sell for.
Do not follow your logic here. Why are you dismissing the inventory cost factor?
Lets say that this store has been open for a week, and the only customer has been this thief. He stole the $100, good for him. Then he bought $70 in merchandise. At the end of the week, the owner reorders, and starts the next week with the same stock levels. The reorder to replace the $70 in merchandise costs $35. He also notes that his register is $100 short.
Profit on merchandise sales for the week without theft=$35
Theft=$100
Profit for the week minus theft=$35-$100=$65
Once again, and you have avoided answering this, if a $100 gift certificate that was given away as a raffle gets cashed in, does the store lose $100?
He was a thief when he stole the money, he was a customer when he spent the money. The store lost $100.00.